Intensive Correction Orders: who gets one and why.

An Intensive Correction Order is the most serious sentence the NSW courts can impose without sending the offender to gaol. The order is a sentence of imprisonment; the court has decided custody is the only appropriate penalty. The decision the court then makes is whether that custody should be served in the community under supervision and conditions, or in full time. The ICO is the community option. This note explains who is eligible, how the community-safety assessment under section 66 works, who is excluded, and what the conditions look like in practice.

The legal hook: section 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Section 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) provides that "a court that has sentenced an offender to imprisonment in respect of one or more offences may make an intensive correction order directing that the sentence or sentences be served by way of intensive correction in the community."

Three points follow from the wording. First, the ICO follows the sentence of imprisonment; the court must have already decided that no penalty short of imprisonment is appropriate (the section 5 threshold). Second, the order directs how the sentence is served, not what it is; the offender is sentenced to imprisonment of a specified term, and then directed to serve it on an ICO. Third, the ICO is available only where the court is satisfied of the matters in section 66.

The duration cap

An ICO is available for a sentence of imprisonment of up to two years for a single offence, or up to three years for an aggregate sentence covering multiple offences. Beyond those caps, the sentence must be served full time.

The community-safety test: section 66

This is the heart of the ICO regime. Section 66 of the Act provides that, in determining whether to make an ICO, "community safety must be the paramount consideration". When considering community safety, the court is to assess "whether making the order or serving the sentence by way of full-time detention is more likely to address the offender's risk of reoffending".

The provision changes the question the court asks. It is not whether the offender deserves a community sentence. It is whether the community will be safer if the offender serves the sentence on an ICO than if the offender serves it full time. The framing is consequentialist. Rehabilitation prospects, supervision conditions, treatment availability, and the offender's responsiveness to community supervision all bear on the answer.

Section 66 also requires the court to consider:

• The contents of any assessment report on the offender.
• Any other information about the offender's likelihood of reoffending.

An ICO is not made without an assessment report from Community Corrections. The report addresses suitability, supervision arrangements, and any treatment that should be made a condition.

Section 67: the offences ICO cannot cover

Section 67 lists offences for which an ICO is not available, even if all the other criteria are met. These include:

• Murder or manslaughter.
• A prescribed sexual offence (the long list in section 67(2) covers most serious sexual offences against children, sexual assault offences, and aggravated indecency).
• A terrorism offence.
• Breach of a serious crime prevention order or a public safety order.
• Offences involving the discharge of a firearm.
• Certain organised crime offences.

If the matter is one of these, the only sentence at the imprisonment level is full-time detention. The ICO route is closed.

Section 4B: domestic violence protection

Section 4B operates as a separate gateway for domestic violence offences. An ICO cannot be made for a domestic violence offence (or an aggregate sentence that includes one) unless the court is satisfied that:

• The victim of the offence will be adequately protected, and
• Any person with whom the offender is likely to reside will be adequately protected.

This is a real threshold. Where the offender is likely to return to live with the victim, an ICO is unlikely. Where the offender will live separately and a final AVO is in place with appropriate conditions, the threshold is more readily met.

The conditions of an ICO

Every ICO carries a standard set of conditions imposed by force of statute (the "standard conditions" under section 73): the offender must not commit any offence, and must submit to supervision by Community Corrections.

The court must impose at least one additional condition from a defined list (section 73A), which includes:

• A home detention condition.
• An electronic monitoring condition.
• A curfew condition.
• A community service condition (up to 750 hours).
• A rehabilitation or treatment condition.
• An alcohol or drug abstinence condition.
• A non-association condition.
• A place restriction condition.

The combination of conditions imposed is calibrated to the offending and the offender. A first-offence drug supply where addiction is the driver typically attracts rehabilitation, abstinence, and curfew conditions. A breach of an AVO with violence attracts non-association and place restrictions, often with electronic monitoring.

Home detention as a condition

The home detention condition restricts the offender to their residence except for approved purposes (employment, medical appointments, treatment, court attendance, education). It is not full-time house arrest; it is a curfew with limited approved exits, monitored by Community Corrections and often by electronic monitoring.

Home detention can only be imposed where the court is satisfied that the residence is suitable (section 73A). The Community Corrections assessment report addresses this. A residence shared with the victim of the offence, or with people known to the police as having ongoing drug or violence issues, is rarely accepted as suitable.

What an ICO actually feels like

An ICO requires regular reporting to a Community Corrections officer (initially weekly, often moving to fortnightly), random drug and alcohol testing where there is an abstinence condition, attendance at programs ordered as conditions, and compliance with any curfew or movement restrictions. The offender works, raises a family, and lives in the community, but the order is a real and active presence in their life.

Breach of an ICO is dealt with by the State Parole Authority, which has the power to revoke the order and direct that the balance of the sentence be served full time. A revocation is not automatic on a breach; the SPA has the discretion to leave the order in place with a warning, vary the conditions, or revoke. A breach by commission of a further offence is the most common path to revocation.

The strategic question

For the offender, the question is whether the ICO is preferable to full-time custody. In most matters it plainly is. The exception is where the head sentence is short (six months or less) and the offender has stable employment and family arrangements that will survive a short custodial term but would be disrupted by 18 months of intensive supervision. That calculation is fact-specific and is worth running before the plea is entered.

One last note

The ICO is the bridge between the community sentences (CRO and CCO) and full-time imprisonment. It is the sentence the cases come down to in much of the middle-band offending we run: AOABH with real injury, second-offence high-range PCA, drug supply at the small or indictable quantity, contravene AVO with violence. Whether an ICO is available, and what conditions it should carry, is one of the larger conversations in any case that reaches sentence.

This note is general information about New South Wales sentencing law and is not legal advice for any particular case. For advice on your matter, contact us through our contact page or phone 0421 717 019.

← Back to all insights